Flipping eck that's long-winded. But I think I am gleaning from it that the AG played a blinder in the archiving statement by saying that there is, and I paraphrase, nothing to point to the parents' being guilty. Thus preserving for any future reopening of the case, protection of the McCanns' right to presumption of innocence.

_________________Everything I write is my own opinion. Nothing stated as fact.

Châtelaine wrote:AFAIK he also said, that it was a pity [non verbatim] that they never assisted to prove their innocence.

Yes I think you are correct but my point is that the AG stressed that the parents were not being considered as guilty, thereby they could not claim ( later) to have been deprived of the fundamental right to be presumed innocent, as decreed in the European Convention on Human Rights.I did notice though, that the convention is worded that a person charged with a crime has the right to presumption of innocence. The Macs were never charged.Will edit to include relevant wording in a minute.

ETA

The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these provisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation. Accordingly in the Karaman vs Germany case, the decision claims that "the Court has previously held in this context that Art 6-2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements..

_________________Everything I write is my own opinion. Nothing stated as fact.